In my recent guest blog post on "Caveman Politics" (thanks Gregg!), I discussed how Richie Incognito bullied Jonathan Marting using what may be seen as "sexually ambiguous" bullying strategies.

The continuing saga and emerging details raise even more head-scratching questions. For instance, the outsider may ask why Incognito – a man at the height of his profession, having made the 2012 Pro Bowl, respected by his peers enough to be on the Miami Dolphin’s player leadership council, co-winner of the Pro Football Writers Association of South Florida’s “Good Guy Award,” intelligent enough to be part of the NFL Business Management and Entrepreneurial Program (co-taught by Harvard and Northwestern University no less!), and earning a reported base salary of $4 million for 2012 – would engage in what is apparently reprehensible behavior.

Canned Dolphin?

Perhaps more disturbing to outsiders are the revelations that Incognito’s teammates are siding with him publicly over the obviously aggrieved Martin, even as management has visibly distanced themselves. The question is: are these players lining up behind one of their own, arguably their leader, Richie Incognito, or are they covering their own behinds?

The more evidence that comes to light, the more it appears these players are complicit in the bullying of second-year pro Martin. Indeed, some may argue Martin was complicit in his own bullying by initially laughing off the attacks on him. It’s all so… confusing! What’s an evolutionary-minded thinker to do?

Immediately, two questions come to mind: Why does leadership go bad? And why do people follow bad leaders, even when they know they’re pushing the boundaries of acceptable behavior? In other words, why would Richie Incognito turn to bullying of such an extreme nature? And why would Dolphins of all stripes follow this aberrant porpoise?

Perhaps the best way to approach this is to understand men in groups, and these groups in team sports. Team sports, such as football and rugby (as well as such lesser team sports as soccer, cricket, and baseball) are premised upon group cohesion. In other words, the successful team is a band of brothers. And to beat other bands of brothers, especially at the highest level, means finding any edge possible.

Whether this edge is performance enhancing drugs, extreme training and nutrition, sports psychology, or paying the head coach more than the combined salaries of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, players, coaches, and fans are willing to pay that price (although the taxpayers footing the stadium bills may not be so willing). However, individual talent can go only so far when on any given Sunday, the talent across from you can match you and beat you.

That’s when the power of team camaraderie steps in. The team that plays as one cohesive unit will oftentimes beat the team that doesn’t have the same tight connection. This may even be the case when a team’s competition has superior talent, because we all know there is no “I” in team (although there is a “me” and “meat”... but that’s another blog post).

Offensive Lines

So what can teams do to increase their cohesion? Probably just what Richie Incognito made his teammates do – laugh together. The social contagion of laughter is a powerful force for connecting people together; people who laugh together share their emotions, they share their sense of humor, and they share their values. They also bond behind their leader, in this case Incognito, when that leader tells the joke. But let’s get to that later.

The laughter of groups matters because individuals laughing together become more connected with each other as a result. Many social species laugh: rats laugh, dogs laugh, primates – especially humans – laugh, even dolphins laugh (no word on Vikings – they’re having a terrible year!).

Laughter is a coordinated and contagious social response that brings individuals together, but at the same time can unite them against the target of the humor. In a sense, it can be a form of “mobbing” seen in many smaller animals and birds (Ravens and Seahawks?), and can be an aggressive, yet socially acceptable, response to individuals not meeting group expectations – as appears to be the case with Jonathan Martin.

The importance of the rough camaraderie of teammates in the locker room or on the field before and after games cannot be overstated. In my experience, humor is extremely important for bringing players together, slackers into the fold, and reducing tension before big games. During the eight years I was assistant rugby coach at Arkansas State University (1999-2007), our team played in the national Division 2 collegiate championship game three times. The first time, when all of us were joking, laughing and loose, we won; the next two championship games, when we were serious, sober-minded and obsessing on the match in front of us, we played well below our potential and lost both times.

Unnecessary Roughness?

Although humor is a glue for teams, when men get together this humor can be very “raw” as it often makes fun of bad decisions, exposes weaknesses, and infringes on social norms including traditionally uncomfortable and politically incorrect topics of ethnicity and sexuality. The nicknames alone can be brutal and humbling, subtly reminding men of their place in the hierarchy well after it was earned (please don’t ask me why some of my friends call me “Hammerhead”!).

In a very real sense, the humor is encrypted, which makes the joke funnier by keeping the humor and the laughter to the in-group, but at the same time it ensures shared knowledge by keeping the humor within a brotherhood that transcends the ethnicity, social class, and hopefully someday soon, the sexuality that gets made fun of.

For the roughly 30% of individuals who are predisposed to be subservient to authority, toeing the line and respecting authority, whether it be the head coach, the quarterback, or the unit leader, in this case Richie Incognito, football is a dream sport. For those free spirits that cannot or will not fall in line, offensive or not, it’s best to try another sport (such as rugby!). However, if the rewards are too great, the options are to suffer in silence and hope to weather the storm, or possibly have a break down, presumably like Jonathan Martin, who likely thought it was not just him versus Incognito, but also all Incognito’s friends and followers in the locker room.

But enough of blaming the victim – as that is way too easy, and doesn’t help us understand how the saga began, and how to fix and/or avoid situations like this in the future. The problem is, Incognito stepped over the line with his humor, or perhaps more likely, didn’t even know where that line was in the first place. He even admitted so in a recent television interview, saying he took things too far, was too vulgar, and is embarrassed by his actions.

And perhaps more distressing, his behavior may have been encouraged by the upper echelons of the Dolphins organization. As followers, whether players, fans, voters/taxpayers, or just interested bystanders, it is up to us to hold our leaders to higher standards and teach our children that courage comes in many different forms and can mean either holding the line or breaking through it.

“Those students who were named the coolest at one time were largely named the most aggressive the next time, and those considered the most aggressive were significantly more likely to be named the coolest the next time. The results indicate that both physical aggression and spreading rumors are rewarded by middle school peers.”

Why was bullying rewarded by middle schoolers? Because being mean can be very entertaining. Which also explains why Simon Cowell is paid millions per year, and why so many reality shows are so successful.

So for the question as to why Incognito “would engage in what is apparently reprehensible behavior” despite being popular, for the same reason the cool middle schooler do, because it is entertaining for the other kids, thus raising their popularity.

Dr. Murray wrote:

“For the roughly 30% of individuals who are predisposed to be subservient to authority, toeing the line and respecting authority, whether it be the head coach, the quarterback, or the unit leader, in this case Richie Incognito, football is a dream sport. For those free spirits that cannot or will not fall in line, offensive or not, it’s best to try another sport (such as rugby!). However, if the rewards are too great, the options are to suffer in silence and hope to weather the storm, or possibly have a break down, presumably like Jonathan Martin, who likely thought it was not just him versus Incognito, but also all Incognito’s friends and followers in the locker room.”

Dr. Murray seems to be making the argument that Incognito joking at the expense of everyone in the team equally, and that for some reason Martin took offense at the same treatment that everyone else in the team was receiving. But from media accounts, it is clear that Incognito was not treating all the team mates equally, instead he had picked out Martin for “special treatment”, i.e. bullying (such as threatening his family).

In the military, during basic training, is it common practice for the trainer to treat all the trainees horribly. No matter how competent or incompetent the trainee they all get treated equally badly. The result is increased unit cohesion. And that is not what Incognito was doing.

Nicely argued points Katie, however, I'd disagree with my asserting that Incognito treated everyone the same. He might have picked on Martin more extensively, or Martin may have been much more attuned to social cues; it is hard to tell without being a part of the locker room. Regardless, my point is that Incognito did not have the social intelligence to know when to stop, nor were there individuals in the locker room (such as senior team members) who were able to control his behavior.

I will agree with you that such behavior is to be expected in all male groups and often has quite beneficial purposes. Zero-tolerance of such behavior would be nigh impossible to enforce; however, a better understanding of the role it plays in enhancing group bonding may lead to better control of such behavior so that it doesn't go "out-of-bounds"!

“Nicely argued points Katie, however, I'd disagree with my asserting that Incognito treated everyone the same. He might have picked on Martin more extensively, or Martin may have been much more attuned to social cues; it is hard to tell without being a part of the locker room.”

Thank you Dr. Murray!

I think the timeline is important. At first Incognito and Martin got along great, which points to Martin not being super-sensitive and unable to take teasing, Incognito teased Martin and called him all sorts of names and Martin was fine with it because it was affectionate teasing between the two of them. It was only later when higher-ups asked Incognito to toughen up Martin that Incognito's behavior turned ugly.

But regardless, there is an investigation which should bring to light exactly what happened.

“I will agree with you that such behavior is to be expected in all male groups and often has quite beneficial purposes.”

No, I'm not arguing that teasing or bullying are to be expected in all male groups. Teasing and bullying are common in all sorts of groups, all-male, all-female, and mixed.

Instead I was giving one example where everyone being treated horribly equally actually increased group bonding through shared suffering (little time to sleep, little time to eat, working very hard all the time, being yelled at all the time, etc). One thing they did that was quite interesting was if someone made a mistake (say did a bad job making their bed), they wouldn't get punished, instead everyone else in the group would be punished. You would think this would increase resentment, but because this form of treatment was meted out more or less equally, people didn't resent being punished for someone else's mistake, since it was only a matter or time before their own deficiency was pointed out and they would be forced to stand there uncomfortably while everyone else was punished.